|
NASHVILLE -- There has always been a debate over the destiny of this nation between
those who believed they were entitled to govern because of their station in life, and
those who believed that the people were sovereign. That distinction remains as strong as
ever today. In every race this November, the question voters must answer is, How do we
make sure that political power is used for the benefit of the many, rather than the few?
For well over a year, the Bush administration has used its power in the wrong way. In the
election of 2000, I argued that the Bush-Cheney ticket was being bankrolled by "a new
generation of special interests, power brokers who would want nothing better than a pliant
president who would bend public policy to suit their purposes and profits." Some
considered this warning "anti-business." It was nothing of the sort. I believe
now, as I said then, that "when powerful interests try to take advantage of the
American people, it's often other businesses that are hurt in the process" - smaller
companies that play by the rules.
This view was not partisan. It was based on a plain reading of the history of Republican
governance under Presidents Reagan and Bush. And every passing day demonstrates that it
was merely the truth.
I believe Governor Bill Clinton and I were right to maintain, during our 1992 campaign,
that fighting for "the forgotten middle class" against the "forces of
greed." Standing up for the people, not the powerful was the right choice in 2000. In
fact, it is the ground of the Democratic party's being, our meaning and our mission.
The suggestion from some in our party that we should no longer speak that truth,
especially at a time like this, strikes me as bad politics and wrong in principle. This
struggle between the people and the powerful was at the heart of every major domestic
issue of the 2000 campaign and is still the central dynamic of politics in 2002.
The choice, not just in rhetoric but in reality, was and still is between a genuine
prescription drug benefit for all seniors under Medicare - or a token plan designed to
trick the voters and satisfy pharmaceutical companies. The White House and its allies in
Congress have just defeated legislation that would have fulfilled the promises both
parties made in 2000.
The choice was and still is between a real patients' bill of rights -- or doing the
bidding of the insurance companies and health maintenance organizations. Here again:
promise made, promise broken.
The choice was and still is an environmental policy based on conservation, new
technologies, alternative fuels and the protection of natural wonders like the Alaskan
wilderness - or walking away from the grave challenge of global warming, doing away with
superfund cleanups and giving in on issue after issue to those who profit from pollution.
And the choice, even more urgently today, is between protecting Social Security or raiding
and then privatizing it so that the trust fund can be used to finance massive tax cuts
that primarily benefit the very rich.
The economic debate, now as then, is fundamentally about principle. The problem is not
that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney picked the wrong advisors or misunderstood the technical
arguments, but that their economic purpose was and is ideological: to provide $1.6
trillion dollars in tax giveaways for the few, while pretending that they were for the
many, and manipulating the numbers to make it appear that the budget surplus would be
preserved. It was pre-Enron political accounting.
For them, incredibly, it is also post-Enron accounting. And the result is the replacement
in one year of a surplus with another massive deficit.
It's not just the stock market that has gone down. It is confidence in the honesty of our
government. If President Bush wants to pursue honesty and integrity in the White House he
should make public the names of the energy company lobbyists who advised him on energy and
environmental legislation, and he should call for the release of the Securities and
Exchange Commission files on the controversy surrounding his role in certain stock sales.
But what is far more important than the pursuit of a few bad apples in the White House is
the need to recognize that what has been put at risk is nothing less than the future of
democratic capitalism. And it cannot be rejuvenated unless the people and the politicians
focus on the question: What is good for the whole?
Ideally, President Bush should lead that effort. For the president is the only person in
our constitutional framework charged with representing all Americans.
Presidents of both parties in the past have risen to meet that responsibility when the
interests of the people were at risk from the unrestrained greed of the powerful. A
Democratic president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, met that challenge, even though it earned
him the hatred of his patrician social peers as a ``traitor to his class.'' A Republican
president, Theodore Roosevelt, prevented the magnates of his day from consolidating a grip
on both political and economic power.
We are at such a moment again. Uncommon power has combined with uncommon greed to create
immense deceptions and losses. Millions of average Americans have been victimized. So have
thousands of honest American corporations and the people who manage them, own stock in
them, and depend upon them for a livelihood, for sending their children to college and for
their retirement.
A major correction is needed in the course of our nation. It is needed first and foremost
in the composition of the next Congress. We need a majority of men and women who will not
flinch from the task at hand. For now is a time for truth and courage. And now is the time
for all Americans to stand up to the powerful on behalf of the people.
|
